Industry Comment

Article
Mar 8, 1999

Industry Comment

By Sen. John McCain, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee

March
1999

On
his 2-year authorization bill, and the potential for longer term legislation
...

This year's FAA reauthorization
bill picks up where we left off last year, when the Senate approved a
two-year reauthorization bill by a vote of 92-1. Two years was the term
that the Senate supported. If members support a longer term, I could support
that as well. '

A six-month authorization
is unnecessary. Both the House and the Senate have considered multi-year
reauthorization proposals for at least the past two years. It is time
to move forward on the important safety, security, and competition improvements
that are included in S. 82.

On taking the Aviation
Trust Fund off budget ...

I have traditionally
opposed taking trust funds off budget. I understand that there are more
than one hundred trust funds in the federal budget. If you take them out
of the unified budget, you have to be prepared to make drastic spending
cuts elsewhere in the budget. It's a zero sum game.

I also question what
good it would do to treat the aviation trust fund like the highway trust
fund. All highway improvements are paid for out of the highway trust fund.
Yet, aviation spending is supported by an approximate $2 billion annual
contribution from the general fund. If you take aviation off budget, you
lose this general fund contribution. Spending on aviation could actually
decrease.

Taking the aviation
trust fund off budget would change the role of appropriators, who play
a significant role in scrutinizing FAA spending on salaries, capital acquisition,
and the like. They make the case that the FAA is not fiscally responsible
enough to deserve unfettered spending ability. Federal spending on highways
goes almost exclusively toward laying pavement and related capital construction.
Aviation spending goes for a great deal more than just infrastructure
improvements. It supports a huge federal bureaucracy that doesn't exist
in highways.

I have supported
instead an FAA-sponsored user fee system. Under that system, most users
would simply pay for the services that they get from the federal government.
These payments would in turn support the federal aviation system. A key
component of the proposal, however, is fiscal accountability on the part
of FAA. Toward that end, we enacted legislation in 1996 that directs the
FAA to develop a cost accounting system. FAA has to be able to demonstrate
that it is spending the right amount on the right things before Congress
simply throws more money at the agency.

On his proposal for
a Small Community Aviation Development Program ...

The program would
allow communities or consortia of communities to form assessments of their
air service requirements, and submit their assessments and air service
proposals to the Department of Transportation. The DOT would then select
communities in the program, and ask air carriers to respond to their air
service proposals.

DOT would work with
these small communities and air carriers to facilitate the initiation
of air service. DOT would be able to provide financial assistance to communities
of up to $500,000 per year per community, as long as the community provides
a 25 percent funding match. The emphasis would be on public-private partnerships
to promote air service at small communities that have not benefitted from
deregulation.

Regarding the National
Air Transportation Association's Aviation Access Initiative, the FAA reauthorization
bill would require the General Accounting Office to study how the national
airport system meets rural air transportation needs. Specifically, the
study will look at the ability of the airport system to place people within
a one-hour drive of an airport with a runway of at least 5,500 feet in
length.